Iranian World of Warcraft fans have been left outraged after the US company behind the game abruptly halted access in accordance with trade sanctions and refused to offer refunds.

After discovering they were unable to log on, Iran-based players began posting complaints on the Blizzard Activision forum. Days later, an employee delivered the bad news in a post.

"United States trade restrictions and economic sanction laws prohibit Blizzard from doing business with residents of certain nations, including Iran. Several of you have seen and cited the text in the Terms of Use which relates to these government-imposed sanctions. Blizzard tightened up its procedures to ensure compliance with these laws, and players connecting from the affected nations are restricted from access to Blizzard games and services."

According to the post, disappointed fans of games like Diablo 3 and StarCraft 2 are not even due a refund—bad news for those who have ordered the upcomingMists of Pandaria. Blizzard's PR director Rob Hilburger's comments that the Iranian market is just "a tiny fraction" of its ten million strong worldwide network will presumably do little to calm fans who have been playing for more than a decade, now left with nothing more that a mild dig at the politics behind the decision: "We apologize for any inconvenience this causes and will happily lift these restrictions as soon as US law allows."

Tellingly, the post also made mention of suspicions that Iran was planning on blocking access to the Battle.net games portal anyway, saying, "Blizzard Entertainment cannot speak to any reports surrounding the Iranian government restricting games from its citizens."

On August 14, a week or so before gamers began experiencing difficulties logging on, a conference was held in Iran for the launch of the Islamic Revolution Game Designers Community. At the event, a brochure from the Iranian government's Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance cited World of Warcraft as an "example of the means [by] which western propaganda is used to poison the mind of [the] youth population in Iran." Alongside an image of the game was a list of reasons, translated by a Tehran journalist for The Verge, including, "promotion of superstition and mythology," "promotion of violence due to too much violence," and "demonstration of inappropriate clothing and slutty outfits for female avatars."

The terms and conditions for World of Warcraft have long stated the following: "The software utilised by World of Warcraft and/or the service may not be downloaded or otherwise exported or re-exported into (or to a national or resident of) Cuba, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Iran, Syria or any other country to which the US has embargoed goods." The fact that action has only just been implemented suggests the game maker has either decided to take preemptive action after hearing about the founding of the Islamic Revolution Game Designers Community, or it has caved under the pressure of increasing tensions between the US and Iran. Either way, it is unlikely that the decision was impulsive, calling into question the company's decision to continue accepting payments up until the block date.

The news comes the same week that a former US state department science and technology advisor and an international lawyer posed an argument in the Los Angeles Times that trade and economic sanctions do not work. In the case of Iran, the pair wrote, "the sole intended consequence of all these sanctions has been zero insofar as scaling back or curtailing Iran's nuclear program." The article suggests security and stability will only be possible if the US opts for another tactic.

"Imposing more sanctions on Iran would result in further radicalization, adding fuel to the fire of hard-liners and eventually marginalizing the democratic forces in Iran. Instead of sanctions, the West is better advised to support and promote the Iranian private sector, which is the engine of economic growth and social change."

154 Reader Comments

1) Iran stormed the US embassy in Tehran, violating the rights that embassies hold.

2) Iran hasn't given any convincing evidence that they are not enriching uranium for a bomb. In fact the country refused the offer of having the uranium enriched in Russia and then be shipped across the border.

3) Any evidence of the US being a threat to Iran right this instant? Iran has only brought this situation upon themselves by continuing to defy UN resolutions and the non-proliferation act.

Sorry but i cannot be civil with stupidity like the one you're exhibiting. Before you speak of things you do not seem to have any knowledge about except what you're fed by our pathetic medias, then i suggest you pick up books to acquaint yourself with some historical facts about the Persians.

1. it was angry demonstrators who stormed and not iran, know the difference between a country and stupid demonstrators. 2. Iran doesn't have to give evidence, they have the right to enrich if they wanted just like other countries that are enriching uranium. Iran has signed the treaty of non-proliferation of WMD. the US and Israel have not. Who are you to allow some to have this ability and not others. 3. The US IS the prime reason why we have this regime in Iran, The US ousted the first democratically elected candidate back in the 50s and replaced it with a puppet kind called the Shaa. The same king was there to support and serve the interest of foreigners whilst his own people were in extreme poverty. You know, the sort of democracy that the US of A enjoy to enforce by wars and coup d'etat. A living example would be Saudi Arabia and its pathetic and unrepresentative USA/UK made monarchy.

Please get more knowledge about international affair before posting silly arguments that you've picked on fox news or CNN. You're giving a bad name to americans in a time where their reputation still drags in the blood of innocents. Innocents killed by illegal wars wagged in the name of "democracy" and lies broadcasted by "civilized" "journalists"

Yeah I don't have a lot of sympathy for the gamers in Iran with this issue. It's better for Blizzard to follow the trade embargoes instead of continuing business with Iran. That Standard Charter (?) bank should be a prime example.

You're right, how dare any gamer be born outside the US.

How is it Blizzard's fault that the US is enforcing an embargo? It's also not Blizzard's fault that Iran is a vast wasteland of religious tyranny. They're just trying to make money selling a game. Maybe with no WoW these gamers can spend more time pushing for change in their country.

Vast wasteland of religion tyranny? You are blind man. Here have some linky

"In 1951, after the assassination of prime minister Ali Razmara, Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh was elected prime minister by a parliamentary vote which was then ratified by the Shah. As prime minister, Mosaddegh became enormously popular in Iran after he nationalized Iran's petroleum industry and oil reserves. In response, the British government, headed by Winston Churchill, embargoed Iranian oil and successfully enlisted the United States to join in a plot to depose the democratically elected government of Mosaddegh. In 1953 US President Dwight D. Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax. The operation was successful, and Mosaddegh was arrested on 19 August 1953. The coup was the first time the US had openly overthrown an elected, civilian government.[82]"

"When the first democratically elected parliament and prime minister in Iran took power in 1950 they planned to seize the oil assets in Iran that had been developed by the British, violating the still running oil contract with British Petroleum. The British Government followed to court in Belgium's International Court and lost the case against Iran's new government. Great Britain reacted by blockading the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, halting Iran's trade and economy."

Countries generally don't like other countries that nationalize their investments in said country.

Yeah I don't have a lot of sympathy for the gamers in Iran with this issue. It's better for Blizzard to follow the trade embargoes instead of continuing business with Iran. That Standard Charter (?) bank should be a prime example.

When have international sanctions done anything but harm the general population of the country under embargo? Case in point, Cuba. The ruling elite haven't suffered a thing there.

I could be totally in the wrong here but I'm pretty sure that harming the general population is the whole point of an embargo. If you can't affect a desired change by negotiating with the ruling elite directly isn't the next step to encourage the population to do so themselves? Or something like that..

Why does the west still practice embargoes as a political device? Sure, in theory an embargo could put economic pressure on the leadership of an adversarial government but, in practice, all it seems to do is cause the leadership to dig while the populace becomes more and more hostile toward the embargoing country/countries whom they see as the root of the problem.

I have always felt that it made more sense to trade oppressive regimes out of existence by hooking the populace on goods and services that are plentiful in non-oppressive societies so that they want more and more access to that and, eventually, cast off the political dead weight holding them back.

I think if we had maintained an open trade relationship with Cuba, it would be a completely different place than it is now.

I'm guessing that Blizzard is prevented by law from knowingly refunding funds to people they know are in Iran. They probably shouldn't have taken the funds in the first place, but then again they can probably argue that they didn't know they weren't US Citizens living abroad, etc.

As to the guy who is arguing that Iran has never been an expansionist country in it's entire history, that's a deceptive argument. The modern state has existed since 1501 as they successfully repelled colonization and since then they have conducted several offensive wars most notably in 1738. If you want to count the history of the ethnic people of the region then they've engaged in innumerable conquests dating back long before their wars with Greece. If you want to argue that they haven't engaged in offensive war in the post Imperialist world that's your prerogative. One could argue that they were sponsors of state Terrorism which is typically viewed as a asymmetric form of offensive warfare, and were actively if indirectly engaged in the war in Iraq. They have also general adopted a very hostile stance over the last forty or so years even if that's reasonably understandable given the history. On it's face though your statement as worded is patently false.

All that said, I do agree with you that the US and it's coalition seem to be making a mountain out of a molehill. I've heard suspicion that this could be part of a strategy of perpetual small scale war, to help repel calls to reduce military spending while calls are being made all over the political spectrum to cut 'discretionary' spending.

None of this is really relevant to the article however. I would be shocked if legally Blizzard COULD give refunds, even if it wanted to. It's certainly not obligated to given it's ToS. It is my supposition that anyone who has an issue with any of this probably needs to take it up with their congressmen rather than the company.

Maybe, just maybe Blizzard shouldn't' have sold them access to the game. There have been export restrictions against Iran for some time now. Hell, didn't some guy at an Apple store actually refuse to sell an iphone or some tech to a person of Iranian decent?

1) I am going to guess that Blizzard actually never sold a single copy of World of Warcraft to a player in Iran. I am also going to guess the player in question actually purchased a physical copy through other means.

2) Blizzard could have in theory blocked players from playing in Iran. This of course would have blocked access to an American player who was simply visiting Iran. So blocking said resident of Iran from actually playing the game would be a double edge sword.

3) Its not clear if Blizzard could have blocked only players in Iran from paying a subscription. There would be other means to still access the game, since Blizzard up until recently, did not actually block access to their game.

In the end it seems Blizzard was advised they should block access to their game if you are using an ISP based out of Iran and/or the other locations covered by the trade embargo. The point of these response is that Blizzard likely didn't sell the game to these players, they used other means to purchase the Game Time Cards, and furthermore only the NA World of Warcraft Service is even likely to be covered by this new policy.

Yeah I don't have a lot of sympathy for the gamers in Iran with this issue. It's better for Blizzard to follow the trade embargoes instead of continuing business with Iran. That Standard Charter (?) bank should be a prime example.

You're right, how dare any gamer be born outside the US.

Yeah. And how dare Blizzard follow the law.

Except that the embargo has been in place forever, and only now Blizzard is doing anything about it.

Yeah I don't have a lot of sympathy for the gamers in Iran with this issue. It's better for Blizzard to follow the trade embargoes instead of continuing business with Iran. That Standard Charter (?) bank should be a prime example.

When have international sanctions done anything but harm the general population of the country under embargo? Case in point, Cuba. The ruling elite haven't suffered a thing there.

That's sort of the point, isn't it? Sew discontent with the people because their government isn't helping to improve their situation. Promote change from within and all that. How often does this work? Eh, must be often enough that it is still used a a political tactic, no? Kind of like a modern day version of a siege. Seems like N. Korea is finally showing some signs of changing their ways after all these years now that Kim Jong Un is in power instead of the Dear Leader.

1) Iran stormed the US embassy in Tehran, violating the rights that embassies hold.

2) Iran hasn't given any convincing evidence that they are not enriching uranium for a bomb. In fact the country refused the offer of having the uranium enriched in Russia and then be shipped across the border.

3) Any evidence of the US being a threat to Iran right this instant? Iran has only brought this situation upon themselves by continuing to defy UN resolutions and the non-proliferation act.

BS, this has nothing to do with a corporation screwing their customers.

BTW you haven't given any convincing evidence that you are not a muppet. Any evidence of you being a muppet right this instant? You has only brought this situation upon yourself by continuing to defy the muppet non-proliferation act.

The problem isn't WOW, Blizzard, or Iranian gamers. The problem is the ridiculous embargo because it doesn't actually do anything to benefit the West. In fact, it only furthers anti-Western sentiments in the region. Iran will get by taking from its allies regardless of what we do over on our half of the globe. We will just end up looking like asses because of it all.

I wouldn't get all worked up about Iran's reputation in the region. Except for Syria, they essentially have no friends. None of their neighbors want Iran to have the bomb. It's not just the U.S. and Israel that care if Iran builds a nuke. The Saudis, Jordanians, Iraqis, Turks, Afghanis, Yemenis, Omanis, Emiratis (is that a word?), Turkmenistanis, Azerbaijanis, Georgians, etc. get as worried as anyone else about Iranian nuclear hegemony in the region. They are really not beloved (or even particularly supported) by their neighbors.

There have been a few documentary's on this. It is proven fact that when Iran threw BP out and nationalized the oil industy, the US and Britain overthrew the government.

There has also been a documentary on how we never went to the moon. Yes the US and Britain may have overthrown the Iranian government, and they may or may not have been motivated by oil. There is no evidence today their actions towards Iran are motivated by oilIt is okay to have an opinion. It is not okay to call your opinions fact

To all the people calling Iran persia. Iran can be persia again when they reimplement freedom of religion the thing that made persia great, back when they released the children of Israel from their servitude in Iraq/babylon.

Why does the west still practice embargoes as a political device? Sure, in theory an embargo could put economic pressure on the leadership of an adversarial government but, in practice, all it seems to do is cause the leadership to dig while the populace becomes more and more hostile toward the embargoing country/countries whom they see as the root of the problem.

Yeah I don't have a lot of sympathy for the gamers in Iran with this issue. It's better for Blizzard to follow the trade embargoes instead of continuing business with Iran. That Standard Charter (?) bank should be a prime example.

You're right, how dare any gamer be born outside the US.

How is it Blizzard's fault that the US is enforcing an embargo? It's also not Blizzard's fault that Iran is a vast wasteland of religious tyranny. They're just trying to make money selling a game. Maybe with no WoW these gamers can spend more time pushing for change in their country.

Vast wasteland of religion tyranny? You are blind man. Here have some linky

"In 1951, after the assassination of prime minister Ali Razmara, Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh was elected prime minister by a parliamentary vote which was then ratified by the Shah. As prime minister, Mosaddegh became enormously popular in Iran after he nationalized Iran's petroleum industry and oil reserves. In response, the British government, headed by Winston Churchill, embargoed Iranian oil and successfully enlisted the United States to join in a plot to depose the democratically elected government of Mosaddegh. In 1953 US President Dwight D. Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax. The operation was successful, and Mosaddegh was arrested on 19 August 1953. The coup was the first time the US had openly overthrown an elected, civilian government.[82]"

"When the first democratically elected parliament and prime minister in Iran took power in 1950 they planned to seize the oil assets in Iran that had been developed by the British, violating the still running oil contract with British Petroleum. The British Government followed to court in Belgium's International Court and lost the case against Iran's new government. Great Britain reacted by blockading the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, halting Iran's trade and economy."

Countries generally don't like other countries that nationalize their investments in said country.

Err... Maybe you should read that quote again. It says the GB government lost the case, then decided to use force to get their way. That isn't a counter quote, it's more evidence of their antipathy towards the government the helped to oust.

The problem isn't WOW, Blizzard, or Iranian gamers. The problem is the ridiculous embargo because it doesn't actually do anything to benefit the West. In fact, it only furthers anti-Western sentiments in the region. Iran will get by taking from its allies regardless of what we do over on our half of the globe. We will just end up looking like asses because of it all.

It also furthers anti-american sentiments outside the region. I would hope even americans hate the american government because of bullshit like this... I certainly would if I lived in the US.

Ya, right. Don't do trade with Iran, but will happily take their money then cut off access. Slime balls for not refunding the money. Its only a tiny fraction of their install base so they can steal the money and run.

"When the first democratically elected parliament and prime minister in Iran took power in 1950 they planned to seize the oil assets in Iran that had been developed by the British, violating the still running oil contract with British Petroleum. The British Government followed to court in Belgium's International Court and lost the case against Iran's new government. Great Britain reacted by blockading the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, halting Iran's trade and economy."

Countries generally don't like other countries that nationalize their investments in said country.

Err... Maybe you should read that quote again. It says the GB government lost the case, then decided to use force to get their way. That isn't a counter quote, it's more evidence of their antipathy towards the government the helped to oust.

Yes, I am aware. You are not going to win an international case based on this. But they clearly broke a deal, and my statement still stands that no one would be happy about this. Especially when we are talking about oil. Its basically, "thanks for build our oil industry for us, we will just take all that investment from you, if you don't mind and use it for ourselves. You don't mind, do you?

Yeah I don't have a lot of sympathy for the gamers in Iran with this issue. It's better for Blizzard to follow the trade embargoes instead of continuing business with Iran. That Standard Charter (?) bank should be a prime example.

You're right, how dare any gamer be born outside the US.

How is it Blizzard's fault that the US is enforcing an embargo? It's also not Blizzard's fault that Iran is a vast wasteland of religious tyranny. They're just trying to make money selling a game. Maybe with no WoW these gamers can spend more time pushing for change in their country.

Vast wasteland of religion tyranny? You are blind man. Here have some linky

"In 1951, after the assassination of prime minister Ali Razmara, Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh was elected prime minister by a parliamentary vote which was then ratified by the Shah. As prime minister, Mosaddegh became enormously popular in Iran after he nationalized Iran's petroleum industry and oil reserves. In response, the British government, headed by Winston Churchill, embargoed Iranian oil and successfully enlisted the United States to join in a plot to depose the democratically elected government of Mosaddegh. In 1953 US President Dwight D. Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax. The operation was successful, and Mosaddegh was arrested on 19 August 1953. The coup was the first time the US had openly overthrown an elected, civilian government.[82]"

"When the first democratically elected parliament and prime minister in Iran took power in 1950 they planned to seize the oil assets in Iran that had been developed by the British, violating the still running oil contract with British Petroleum. The British Government followed to court in Belgium's International Court and lost the case against Iran's new government. Great Britain reacted by blockading the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, halting Iran's trade and economy."

Countries generally don't like other countries that nationalize their investments in said country.

From your quote - "The British Government followed to court in Belgium's International Court and lost the case against Iran's new government."

Britain LOST in a COURT OF LAW. They then embargoed Iran ANNNNNNDD overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister. Im sorry, but Britain can not claim the high ground here.

"When the first democratically elected parliament and prime minister in Iran took power in 1950 they planned to seize the oil assets in Iran that had been developed by the British, violating the still running oil contract with British Petroleum. The British Government followed to court in Belgium's International Court and lost the case against Iran's new government. Great Britain reacted by blockading the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, halting Iran's trade and economy."

Countries generally don't like other countries that nationalize their investments in said country.

Err... Maybe you should read that quote again. It says the GB government lost the case, then decided to use force to get their way. That isn't a counter quote, it's more evidence of their antipathy towards the government the helped to oust.

Yes, I am aware. You are not going to win an international case based on this. But they clearly broke a deal, and my statement still stands that no one would be happy about this. Especially when we are talking about oil. Its basically, "thanks for build our oil industry for us, we will just take all that investment from you, if you don't mind and use it for ourselves. You don't mind, do you?

Ah, ok. So when a country finally gets a democratically elected government that the people want they have to abide by all the crooed deals the past regime made, even when it is detrimental to the population as a whole, or face a foreign led coup?

There have been a few documentary's on this. It is proven fact that when Iran threw BP out and nationalized the oil industy, the US and Britain overthrew the government.

There has also been a documentary on how we never went to the moon. Yes the US and Britain may have overthrown the Iranian government, and they may or may not have been motivated by oil. There is no evidence today their actions towards Iran are motivated by oilIt is okay to have an opinion. It is not okay to call your opinions fact

I love the constant theme in these comments of "Don't punish Iranian gamers because they aren't terrorists, Blizzard!"

Hilarious, because that's EXACTLY what's going on. It has nothing to do with U.S. Embargoes at all, of course not...

/sarcasm. No one ever said they were terrorists, it's just a company following some laws. I'm pretty sure I've never seen any anti-Iran propaganda while wandering around Azeroth. Although, the Barrens does seem shady...

Note: Can I please have my games without this ridiculous political flavoring, Blizzard is doing what they have to do and the U.S. will do whatever it wants to, etc etc, old news.

"When the first democratically elected parliament and prime minister in Iran took power in 1950 they planned to seize the oil assets in Iran that had been developed by the British, violating the still running oil contract with British Petroleum. The British Government followed to court in Belgium's International Court and lost the case against Iran's new government. Great Britain reacted by blockading the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, halting Iran's trade and economy."

Countries generally don't like other countries that nationalize their investments in said country.

Err... Maybe you should read that quote again. It says the GB government lost the case, then decided to use force to get their way. That isn't a counter quote, it's more evidence of their antipathy towards the government the helped to oust.

Yes, I am aware. You are not going to win an international case based on this. But they clearly broke a deal, and my statement still stands that no one would be happy about this. Especially when we are talking about oil. Its basically, "thanks for build our oil industry for us, we will just take all that investment from you, if you don't mind and use it for ourselves. You don't mind, do you?

Iran could have easily paid back any and all investment that BP had made. It is sitting on 100's of billions if not trillions of dollars worth of oil. All that oil was going to BP and NOT to its people. How would you like it if Russia came into your country and staked a claim to your resources?

You'd think a company where half their games have had "war" in the title would be a little more ballsy. That's the noble thing about war, right? That you can stand up to someone you think is wrong and defeat them. Maybe it should be called World of Surrendercraft.

deas187 wrote:

let them play for free.

This is the correct answer. Think of all the positives. Gamers in Iran will love Blizzard. Their love of Blizzard will positively influence their opinion about America, and will keep them from being recruited by the Jihadists. And if that wasn't good enough, their constant WOW playing will will surely lead to obesity. And because it's free, EVERYONE in Iran will be playing. They will ALL get obese, and as a consequence, America will no longer be the fattest country. Everyone wins. Let freedom ring.

No. The US state that their policy of financial sanctions on iran is because of Irans nuclear program. That is not my opinion. If you believe that is not true and is because of some other reason that is "your opinion".

Anyway looks like there are enough trolls on this site who hate something simply because the want to, and my time is better spend elsewhere

You'd think a company where half their games have had "war" in the title would be a little more ballsy. That's the noble thing about war, right? That you can stand up to someone you think is wrong and defeat them. Maybe it should be called World of Surrendercraft.

Clever. Or they just may want to sell games and make money and going against the embargo will cost them money.

zer02 wrote:

deas187 wrote:

let them play for free.

This is the correct answer. Think of all the positives. Gamers in Iran will love Blizzard.

And Americans would hate Blizzard. The "Why do they get to play for free" mentality would spread and Iran would STILL have something to bitch about because now their citizens were getting to be more and more like westerners, indulging in bad habits and whining until they get their way like little children. This was going to end for them regardless as per the hinted at comments in the article about the IRGDC's opinions.

No. The US state that their policy of financial sanctions on iran is because of Irans nuclear program. That is not my opinion. If you believe that is not true and is because of some other reason that is "your opinion".

Anyway looks like there are enough trolls on this site who hate something simply because the want to, and my time is better spend elsewhere

"When the first democratically elected parliament and prime minister in Iran took power in 1950 they planned to seize the oil assets in Iran that had been developed by the British, violating the still running oil contract with British Petroleum. The British Government followed to court in Belgium's International Court and lost the case against Iran's new government. Great Britain reacted by blockading the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, halting Iran's trade and economy."

Countries generally don't like other countries that nationalize their investments in said country.

Err... Maybe you should read that quote again. It says the GB government lost the case, then decided to use force to get their way. That isn't a counter quote, it's more evidence of their antipathy towards the government the helped to oust.

Yes, I am aware. You are not going to win an international case based on this. But they clearly broke a deal, and my statement still stands that no one would be happy about this. Especially when we are talking about oil. Its basically, "thanks for build our oil industry for us, we will just take all that investment from you, if you don't mind and use it for ourselves. You don't mind, do you?

Ah, ok. So when a country finally gets a democratically elected government that the people want they have to abide by all the crooed deals the past regime made, even when it is detrimental to the population as a whole, or face a foreign led coup?

So if the US changes presidents, all past agreements are nullified? Yea, lets do business in the US.

How about a little more background about Iran. My first quote in this thread started with

"In 1951, after the assassination of prime minister Ali Razmara, Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh was elected prime minister by a parliamentary vote which was then ratified by the Shah."

The wiki article doesnt go into any detail on WHY the Prime Minister was assassinated. Here's why:

"Ali Razmara came closer than any other prime minister to ratifying the Supplemental Oil Agreement between Iran and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC). The Supplemental Agreement drew the ire of most Iranians and Majlis of Iran deputies because it provided far less favorable terms than the Venezuela agreement between the Standard Oil of New Jersey and the Venezuelan government, and the agreement between the Arabian-American Oil Company and the Saudi Arabian government. In addition, it gave continuous control of Iran's oil industry to a foreign company and country; the living and working conditions of its Iranian workers were extremely poor; it refused to allow Iranians a greater voice in the company's management; and it denied them the right to audit the company's books. The AIOC did, however, offer a few improvements: It guaranteed that its annual royalty payments would not drop below 4 million pounds; it would reduce the area where it would be allowed to drill; and it promised to train more Iranians for administrative jobs. Razmara asked Anglo-Iranian to revise some of the agreement terms, namely to allow Iranian auditors to review their financial activities, offer Iranians managerial jobs, and pay some of the royalties to the Iranian government in advance. The British refused and lost the opportunity.[1]

It is important to note here that the very reason Razmara was in office was a direct result of the urgings of the British Foreign Office and the AIOC to the Shah who wanted a stronger figure than his predecessor, Prime Minister Mansur, to ensure the success of the Supplemental Agreement. "Only a man with [Razmara's] fierce determination, they believed, would be strong enough to face down Mossadegh and the National Front"<snip>"The nationalization of the oil industry was supported by the vast majority of the Iranian public. Prime Minister Mossadegh and the National Front successfully led the charge to nationalize the oil and expel the AOIC. As this move dealt a severe blow to British interests in Iran, the US and Britain orchestrated the now well-known coup d'état in 1953, code-named Operation Ajax, removing Mossadegh from power and reinstating the Shah. Mohammad Reza Shah was in power until the 1979 revolution, which led to the establishment of the Islamic Republic."

"The Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC) was founded in 1908 following the discovery of a large oil field in Masjed Soleiman, Iran. It was the first company to extract petroleum from the South Asian country of Iran. In 1935 APOC was renamed the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) and in 1954 it became the British Petroleum Company (BP), one of the antecedents of the modern BP plc."

"When the first democratically elected parliament and prime minister in Iran took power in 1950 they planned to seize the oil assets in Iran that had been developed by the British, violating the still running oil contract with British Petroleum. The British Government followed to court in Belgium's International Court and lost the case against Iran's new government. Great Britain reacted by blockading the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, halting Iran's trade and economy."

Countries generally don't like other countries that nationalize their investments in said country.

Err... Maybe you should read that quote again. It says the GB government lost the case, then decided to use force to get their way. That isn't a counter quote, it's more evidence of their antipathy towards the government the helped to oust.

Yes, I am aware. You are not going to win an international case based on this. But they clearly broke a deal, and my statement still stands that no one would be happy about this. Especially when we are talking about oil. Its basically, "thanks for build our oil industry for us, we will just take all that investment from you, if you don't mind and use it for ourselves. You don't mind, do you?

Iran could have easily paid back any and all investment that BP had made. It is sitting on 100's of billions if not trillions of dollars worth of oil. All that oil was going to BP and NOT to its people. How would you like it if Russia came into your country and staked a claim to your resources?

I think one of the benefits of nationalizing an industry is that the rarely pay back what the investment is/was worth. Also, is all that oil money going to the people now? BP would just put the oil on the open market, at market price. Now we have oil cartels who control most of the resources and don't give anything to the people of the land. What a better deal.

"When the first democratically elected parliament and prime minister in Iran took power in 1950 they planned to seize the oil assets in Iran that had been developed by the British, violating the still running oil contract with British Petroleum. The British Government followed to court in Belgium's International Court and lost the case against Iran's new government. Great Britain reacted by blockading the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, halting Iran's trade and economy."

Countries generally don't like other countries that nationalize their investments in said country.

Err... Maybe you should read that quote again. It says the GB government lost the case, then decided to use force to get their way. That isn't a counter quote, it's more evidence of their antipathy towards the government the helped to oust.

Yes, I am aware. You are not going to win an international case based on this. But they clearly broke a deal, and my statement still stands that no one would be happy about this. Especially when we are talking about oil. Its basically, "thanks for build our oil industry for us, we will just take all that investment from you, if you don't mind and use it for ourselves. You don't mind, do you?

Iran could have easily paid back any and all investment that BP had made. It is sitting on 100's of billions if not trillions of dollars worth of oil. All that oil was going to BP and NOT to its people. How would you like it if Russia came into your country and staked a claim to your resources?

I think one of the benefits of nationalizing an industry is that the rarely pay back what the investment is/was worth. Also, is all that oil money going to the people now? BP would just put the oil on the open market, at market price. Now we have oil cartels who control most of the resources and don't give anything to the people of the land. What a better deal.

If you look at the history, if it wasnt for the US getting rid of the democratically elected leader who actually nationalized the industry, the Shah would not exist as Supreme Leader. He only was able take power due to the Prime Minister being overthrown. You are not looking at the big picture. You are nit picking. The Prime Minister that was assassinated by the people, was about to sign an agreement with AIOC(now BP) that would have given FULL control of Iranian oil to a foreign company that was creating horrible working conditions for Iran. Plus, the Iranians would not be allowed to work managerial jobs in the company AND would not be allowed to audit the company to make sure they were being honest in their payments to the government. That is the deal they would have had if they didnt nationalize. That is not any better or worse then what they have now. Your argument is moot.

"United States trade restrictions and economic sanction laws prohibit Blizzard from doing business with residents of certain nations, including Iran"

Ah but it doesn't stop you from the taking money part of doing business.

"The terms and conditions for World of Warcraft have long stated the following: "The software utilised by World of Warcraft and/or the service may not be downloaded or otherwise exported or re-exported into (or to a national or resident of) Cuba, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Iran, Syria or any other country to which the US has embargoed goods."

"Either way, it is unlikely that the decision was impulsive, calling into question the company's decision to continue accepting payments up until the block date."

So in clear violation of their own TOS they were taking money from these poeple and now wont offer refund for their illegal activity. Defrauding, thieving, criminal scum is all Blizzard/Activision is.

This is the correct answer. Think of all the positives. Gamers in Iran will love Blizzard.

And Americans would hate Blizzard. The "Why do they get to play for free" mentality would spread and Iran would STILL have something to bitch about because now their citizens were getting to be more and more like westerners, indulging in bad habits and whining until they get their way like little children. This was going to end for them regardless as per the hinted at comments in the article about the IRGDC's opinions.

You're responding to my joke like I was serious. I know that Blizzard isn't going to let people play WOW for free. They shouldn't. And I sure as hell don't want America to lose its title as the fattest country. We earned that shit fair and square.

Anyway, I understand Blizzard's perspective, but it's still lame. I don't think it's anyone's birth-given right to play WOW, but when you side with those who want to take away that choice, you are on the wrong side of the fight. I'd rather push them to do the right thing than defend their right to follow orders.

Ignoring the politics, hard to tell if Blizzard is behaving badly or just following government orders.

It doesn't matter if the restrictions were in place for years. If your business gets a call from either the State department or DoD (trade or ITAR) sking about your on-going violation you tend to take action fast because the penalties can be astounding. Me <--- recently went through ITAR and export control training where I work, lol.

OTOH, if Blizzard had any advance notice of their own decision they could have softened the financial blow to their Iranian customers. Do we know the timing of events within Blizzard?

You'd think a company where half their games have had "war" in the title would be a little more ballsy. That's the noble thing about war, right? That you can stand up to someone you think is wrong and defeat them. Maybe it should be called World of Surrendercraft.

Clever. Or they just may want to sell games and make money and going against the embargo will cost them money.

zer02 wrote:

deas187 wrote:

let them play for free.

This is the correct answer. Think of all the positives. Gamers in Iran will love Blizzard.

And Americans would hate Blizzard. The "Why do they get to play for free" mentality would spread and Iran would STILL have something to bitch about because now their citizens were getting to be more and more like westerners, indulging in bad habits and whining until they get their way like little children. This was going to end for them regardless as per the hinted at comments in the article about the IRGDC's opinions.

i think everyone in the US already hates blizzard. no but seriously, why would it be a problem? it's the *right* thing to do. and i can't foresee a noticeable amount of WoW players canceling their accounts. more addictive than crack WoW is.

The terms of the new agreement provided for a new 60-year concession. The Agreement reduced the area under APOC control to 100,000 square miles (260,000 km2), required annual payments in lieu of Iranian income tax, as well as guaranteeing a minimum annual payment of £750,000 to the Iranian government. These provisions, while appearing favourable, are widely agreed to have represented a squandered opportunity for the Iranian government. The agreement extended the life of the D'Arcy concession by an additional 32 years, negligently allowed APOC to select the best 100,000 square miles (260,000 km2), the minimum guaranteed royalty was far too modest, and in a fit of carelessness the company's operations were exempted from import or customs duties. Finally, Iran surrendered its right to annul the agreement, and settled on a complex and tediously elaborate arbitration process to settle any disagreements that would arise.

The Anglo-Persian Oil Company continued its large Persian operations although it changed its name to the AIOC in 1935. By 1950 Abadan had become the world's largest refinery. In spite of diversification the AIOC still relied heavily on its Iranian oil fields for three-quarters of its supplies, and controlled all oil in Iran."

"Discontent in Iran

By 1951 Iranian support for nationalisation of the AIOC was intense. Grievances included the small fraction of revenues Iran received. In 1947, for example, AIOC reported after-tax profits of £40 million ($112 million) - and gave Iran just £7 million.[8]

Conditions for Iranian oil workers and their families were very bad. The director of Iran's Petroleum Institute wrote that

Wages were 50 cents a day. There was no vacation pay, no sick leave, no disability compensation. The workers lived in a shanty town called Kaghazabad, or Paper City, without running water or electricity, ... In winter the earth flooded and became a flat, perspiring lake. The mud in town was knee-deep, and ... when the rains subsided, clouds of nipping, small-winged flies rose from the stagnant water to fill the nostrils .... Summer was worse. ... The heat was torrid ... sticky and unrelenting - while the wind and sandstorms shipped off the desert hot as a blower. The dwellings of Kaghazabad, cobbled from rusted oil drums hammered flat, turned into sweltering ovens. ... In every crevice hung the foul, sulfurous stench of burning oil .... in Kaghazad there was nothing - not a tea shop, not a bath, not a single tree. The tiled reflecting pool and shaded central square that were part of every Iranian town, ... were missing here. The unpaved alleyways were emporiums for rats.[9]

Under the 1933 agreement with Reza Shah, AIOC had promised to give laborers better pay and more chance for advancement, build schools, hospitals, roads and telephone system. It had not done so.[8]

In May 1949 Britain had offered a "Supplemental oil agreement" which guaranteed royalty payments would not drop below £4 million, reduced the area in which it would be allowed to drill, and promised more Iranians would be trained for administrative positions." The agreement, however, gave Iran no "greater voice in company's management" or right to audit the company books. When the Iranian Prime Minister tried to argue with AIOC head Sir William Fraser, Fraser "dismissed him" and flew back to the UK.[10]

In late December 1950 word reached Tehran that the American-owned Arabian American Oil Company had agreed to share profits with Saudis on a 50-50 basis. The UK Foreign Office rejected the idea of any similar agreement for AIOC.[11]"

Boy, I bet when BP got it's assets nationalized, they felt a lot like those Iranian Warcraft players who Blizzard is ripping off. Of course you don't see them overthrowing the US government.

Incidentally, how come Blizzard can't do business with Iranians, but it's ok for Halliburton? Maybe Blizzard needs a Cayman's subsidiary too. After all, all the cool kids (and candidates) do their banking there.